Rant Christian nationalism would purify and unify a nation more than racial nationalism ever could.

James

Puritanical Christianist
Every Christian is filled with faith, hope, love, humility, patience, kindness, honesty, and self-control. Christians come in every color, but all are sanctified with these same virtues.

Every non-Christian is filled with doubt, despair, hatred, pride, impatience, cruelty, dishonesty, and self-indulgence. Non-Christians come in every color, but all are unsanctified with these same vices.

Christian nationalism would purify and unify a nation more than racial nationalism ever could.
 
Every time Christians tried to establish a Christian state, non-Christians would fight to stop its establishment. Christians have never established a Christian state free from non-Christian rule.
Not true. The Holy Roman Empire was a Christian nation.
 
Every Christian is filled with faith, hope, love, humility, patience, kindness, honesty, and self-control. Christians come in every color, but all are sanctified with these same virtues.

Every non-Christian is filled with doubt, despair, hatred, pride, impatience, cruelty, dishonesty, and self-indulgence. Non-Christians come in every color, but all are unsanctified with these same vices.

Christian nationalism would purify and unify a nation more than racial nationalism ever could.
I can see some pros and cons to both, and can see some points in what you have to say. Though, My ideological beliefs are sort of weird about this. I keep debating myself about this topic.
 
But it started off with a Christian government which is my point.
selfishlittlegiga-gif.1419606
 
Not true. The Holy Roman Empire was a Christian nation.
No, the Holy Roman Empire was a non-Christian empire.
It doesn't matter how nice the immigrants are, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to be replaced and wanting our white homeland to stay exactly that.
It depends on which spirits are guiding someone to determine whether their aversions and desires are right or wrong.
 
No, the Holy Roman Empire was a non-Christian empire.
In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
 
In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
He sees the HRE (and the original Roman Empire, including the reign of Constantine, which isn't related to the HRE so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to him here when the HRE is what's specifically being discussed) as a non-Christian state because, in his perspective, either were ruled by churches that tried to function under a corrupted system of the faith. Because they were not of his particular Protestantism, they were not truly Christian, as far as I understand James' view of things.
 
How convenient. I’m pretty sure Christ said to not be of this world. Theocracy is a contradiction to his message.

View attachment 5773
I disagree with this statement and your attached comic. I'm about to go somewhere, but when I get home I can explain why I disagree with you.
Alright, time for "Bible with Baqqrih." Let's start with that quote you mentioned. It comes from John's Gospel, and fully, it says:
>If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. - Gospel of John, Chapter 15, Verse 19
So, to be "of the world" is what Jesus is talking about avoiding. What does he mean by that? First, let's look at the Greek for it. The word for "world" here is the Greek term "cosmos." This term also appears in a separate text by John, that being his First Epistle, and in the context of its usage, John writes:
>We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. - First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verse 19
So, this "cosmos" we are hearing of refers to a world separate of Godliness. The world we are physically in is currently Satan's realm. Yet, Christ does not say, "if you were in the world, the world would love you," for, clearly, a Satan-influenced world hates us no matter if we exist in it or if we have already departed from it, because God is of love, and Satan is contrarily of hate. We are certainly in the world, physically-speaking, and yet, we are not of the world because, through being the faithful of Christ, we do not accept its lack of Godliness. We strive for Godliness on this planet. The church is the result of this strife.
I will now justify theocratic governance with an analogy. Picture a gloomy tundra; its crisp, chilling snow breezing across your face as you sit in such jabbing frigidness. You are surrounding a campfire with all of who you love, with all of your family and fellows desperate for warmth, yet with the flames only staving off your fittest few from perishing as the frost grows upon each shivering skin. Lacking the growth of the flames, what warmth will be left for the rest to bask in? Lacking the growth and expansion of the church, what goodness will be left for the rest of our growing faithful to be guided by?
We are not to be of the world--that is for certain--yet we are to be the remainder of what is good in the world, and while evil will always outmatch us in quantity until the return of our Lord Christ, it is only justifiable that the remainder of the world's goodness grows, for that is why Christ established the church to spread among all of the world's nations. Yet, if we only let it prosper under other authorities in the world, how will it truly spread to its furthermost extent?
That is our goal, after all, to forever chase our extent of spreading goodness. If The Lord has told us to advance our faith to the four corners of this planet, then dog-earing those corners with such pitiful weakness by wallowing in resignation and thinking that we're feebler than we are will not guide us towards fulfilling God's intention. As such, the church must not remain forever under the rest of the authorities that are present in the world, as it must be an authority in the world to leap forth closer to its furthest extent of our faith's expansion.

I hope that's a fulfilling-enough explanation.
 
How convenient. I’m pretty sure Christ said to not be of this world. Theocracy is a contradiction to his message.

View attachment 5773
We’re not supposed to let the world run rampant while we sit back. The church is supposed to be a force that actively shapes and influences society, in line with God’s will. Theocracy is ensuring that the church can lead the faithful according to divine truth, rather than the corrupted systems of man. You can’t fulfill Christ’s command to spread his kingdom on earth if you just accept the world's secular authority as ultimate.
 
Alright, time for "Bible with Baqqrih." Let's start with that quote you mentioned. It comes from John's Gospel, and fully, it says:
>If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. - Gospel of John, Chapter 15, Verse 19
So, to be "of the world" is what Jesus is talking about avoiding. What does he mean by that? First, let's look at the Greek for it. The word for "world" here is the Greek term "cosmos." This term also appears in a separate text by John, that being his First Epistle, and in the context of its usage, John writes:
>We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. - First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verse 19
So, this "cosmos" we are hearing of refers to a world separate of Godliness. The world we are physically in is currently Satan's realm. Yet, Christ does not say, "if you were in the world, the world would love you," for, clearly, a Satan-influenced world hates us no matter if we exist in it or if we have already departed from it, because God is of love, and Satan is contrarily of hate. We are certainly in the world, physically-speaking, and yet, we are not of the world because, through being the faithful of Christ, we do not accept its lack of Godliness. We strive for Godliness on this planet. The church is the result of this strife.
I will now justify theocratic governance with an analogy. Picture a gloomy tundra; its crisp, chilling snow breezing across your face as you sit in such jabbing frigidness. You are surrounding a campfire with all of who you love, with all of your family and fellows desperate for warmth, yet with the flames only staving off your fittest few from perishing as the frost grows upon each shivering skin. Lacking the growth of the flames, what warmth will be left for the rest to bask in? Lacking the growth and expansion of the church, what goodness will be left for the rest of our growing faithful to be guided by?
We are not to be of the world--that is for certain--yet we are to be the remainder of what is good in the world, and while evil will always outmatch us in quantity until the return of our Lord Christ, it is only justifiable that the remainder of the world's goodness grows, for that is why Christ established the church to spread among all of the world's nations. Yet, if we only let it prosper under other authorities in the world, how will it truly spread to its furthermost extent?
That is our goal, after all, to forever chase our extent of spreading goodness. If The Lord has told us to advance our faith to the four corners of this planet, then dog-earing those corners with such pitiful weakness by wallowing in resignation and thinking that we're feebler than we are will not guide us towards fulfilling God's intention. As such, the church must not remain forever under the rest of the authorities that are present in the world, as it must be an authority in the world to leap forth closer to its furthest extent of our faith's expansion.

I hope that's a fulfilling-enough explanation.
Makes sense but how much would you trust the authorities to keep to the word of the bible without misinterpreting it?
 
Makes sense but how much would you trust the authorities to keep to the word of the bible without misinterpreting it?
All Christian theocracies become corrupt over time. Who gets to say what God’s will is? The minute you crown a theocrat, you’ve got half the population calling heresy and sharpening their pitchforks. Christendom’s been tearing itself apart over doctrine since the time of the Gospels.

And how about turning the other cheek when the raiders come? It’s a nice dream for a monk, but the world’s too brutal and hierarchical for pacifist fantasies.
 
Back
Top